HomeMy WebLinkAbout0299 it
~ -
the verdict for appellee, Ben Wood Construction, Inc.. We concede
that the questions of foreseeability and proximate cause are
close; however, our study of the record and briefs leads us to
believe there is sufficient competent evidence in the record to
justify the verdict.
[Je also find no error in the trial court's rulings ad-
mitting expert testimony and the evidence of damages for "Down
Time." Appellant's argument .against admissibility of the expert's
testimony was more properly directed at the weight to be afforded
such testimony rather than its admissibility. Regarding the speciPl
damages for Down Time, it appears the allegations of the complaint
were sufficienr_ as a basis to prove the specific items involved.
if appellant were in doubt as to the extent of this claim, it could
have moved for-more definite statement or made inquiry via dis-
covery.
Appellant, .Parliament Insurance Company, contends on
this appeal that the liability coverage which its policy afforded
Business Security and Investigation Corporation, Inc., is not
applicable here because the policy contains an exclusion from lia-
bility for damage to property in the care, custody or control of
~ the insured. The parties agree that the duty of the insurer to
j defend the insured is determined by the allegations of the cor.~-
i
~ plaint. National Union Fire Insurance Company v. Lenox Liquors
.Inc., 353 So.2d 533 (F1a.1977). Looking to the complaint filed
by Ben Wood Construction, Irnc., we hold the allegations are suf-
ficient to require that the carrier defend the insured and the
proof, though not by any means overwhelming, is adequate to sup-
. port the finding in favor of coverage.
Accordingly, the judgments and orders appealed from
are of f irried . ~g$Q AUG 21 Ak 9` 39
. AFFIRMED . 4~j9~
f IlEO AMO 6ECORUED
Si.IUC~~ CpUgTY.FIA.
R06ER P0~7RAS
CLfR1tCtRC~t COURT
RECOP.~ vfR~FtEOr- 6~
DOk~]EY , GLICKSTEI:`] , JJ . , and FUTCH , t4. DA,VIEL , JR . , Associate
Judge, concur.
e~K PAGE